Stem Cell Research...what if it was your 2 year old?

[RobbyS]

Using a blastocyte that will be discarded because it is too old to be implanted is hardly equivalent to being a nation of flesh eating zombies.

Begging the question by assuming that a blastocyte is another other than a human being at an early state of development is a false argument.

 

[RobbyS]

I think that was me and it was not an assumption, but rather a question, which no one answered. Which came first? I was aware of embryonic stem cell research first, but that is just what I remember.

*If *the embryonic stem cell research came first, it is not logical to assume that adult stem cell research was conducted in an academic vacuum devoid of knowledge gained in previous work. In fact, would work with adult stem cells have even started if not for embryonic stem cell research?

Do we persist in using medical procecures that disrespect the human nature of embryos when a less problematic method is found? That is like continuing to use slaves when machine can better do the work. There is a story that some Greek actually invented a steam engine but that the Roman authorites squelched its production because they had so many slaves to do the work. Apocryphal or not, it makes the point.

 

[pnewton]

As to the zombie reference, please see post #10, you will see the connection.

What is a Santarinean? I Googled it and couldn’t come up with anything.

I got it. What you really mean then is cannibals, not zombies. Yes, I butchered the spelling of Santeria. It is a mixture of catholic symbols and voodoo, including zombies.

But what you really are focusing on is the cannibalistic nature of preying on the dead, and I think that is a valid description.

 

[RobbyS]

I am so sorry for the terrible position you are in…I know it must just be a terrible ordeal for you and your child

You should know a small boy was given stem cell treatment and got cancer because of it…I think it happened in Israel

We can never take advantage of others no matter what good we feel will be done…it is wrong to murder…Would you take someone elses life from them to cure your child?

How would you feel knowing you did this?..I couldn’t do it…God is the creator and the author of life, not man

They keep talking about the “potential” of such research when the actuality is unknown.I am reminded of the research on nuclear fusion, which ash gone on for decades now but run into innumerable obstacles. How, for instance, does one put a piece of the sun in a “bottle,” The potential of atomic fusion is unlimited energy, but we see now way to get there from here.

 

[pnewton]

Do we persist in using medical procecures that disrespect the human nature of embryos when a less problematic method is found?

We should never use such methods to begin with. What the OP asks, the topic of the thread, is about using morally acceptable techniques (adult stem cells) that were developed using research on embryonic stem cells. I think it is an excellent question. As long as the embryonic stem cell harvesting was not being done, I admit that I would use adult stem cell therapy if it would save my 2 year old.

 

[mantilla410]

I have perhaps misspoken: allow me to re-phrase. The third question as posed in the OP has a direct line of origin, so, that is most likely why it is being rejected.

As to the zombie reference, please see post #10, you will see the connection.

What is a Santarinean? I Googled it and couldn’t come up with anything.

Do you sacrifice chickens? Or live in South Florida? Try googling “Santeria”, (unless the previous poster had something else in mind.)

Oooooooh, now I get it!

No, I don’t sacrifice chickens, nor do I live in South Florida, (I hear Miami is nice ) so have no fear, no Santeria practices here!

Personal note: zombie reference came from having had the unfortunate experience of watching about 10 minutes of one of the George Romero “classics” with an ex-boyfriend. Which is one of the many reasons why he became the ex-boyfriend.

 

[turtle18]

Being sick doesn’t give one the right to throw out all moralilty in the name of being cured. What good would it do to gain the whole world and in the process lose your soul? Or rephrasing–what good would it do to be physically cured if you commit a grave evil in the process?

Mankind has been in one state of illness or another since the beginning of time. It blows me away that anyone would think it is justifiable to destroy human embryos to get better physically. Most of our illnesses today are tame compared to the suffering of the human race throughout history.

So when you can’t afford this treatment, what are you going to do–rob a bank, steal from the rich to fund it? It’s all okay as long as you get well, right?

 

[mantilla410]

But what you really are focusing on is the cannibalistic nature of preying on the dead, and I think that is a valid description.

I used zombies because zombies are soulless.

"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? " Matthew 16:26

It seems to me in reaching gains for this physical, temporary life, we are forgetting about the eternal one.

"For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it. " Matthew 16:25

And also:

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. " Matthew 16:27

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Recently there was a case of a child who was born with a genetic disease. In desperation, her parents had a procedure that guaranteed them a HEALTHY daughter that was a close enough match to her sister that she would be able to donate the body parts (kidney, part of a liver, skin cells, etc.) that her older sister needed to stay well.

In a way, this case is quite similar to the case here, but we’re talking about someone being born and being kept alive as a “parts caddy” for her sick sister. How do you think the young girl is going to feel after the third or forth procedure as she is being wheeled in to donate another one of her body parts to her older sister? How do you think she is going to feel when she realizes that the only reason her parents brought her into this world was so they could have a supply of body parts for the first daughter they really loved? How do you think she’ll feel as she’s told she can’t risk a normal childhood because it might kill her sister?..

And, The American Medical Association’s nine-member Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs found it ethically permissible for doctors to harvest the organs from live anencephalic infants. The Council’s chairman was quoted in news reports as saying an anencephalic child “might be construed to have some rights, but they are unimportant as compared with the importance of making their organs available.” ppl.org/cg8.html

The man who used to be my Bishop is dying from Parkinsons. He was a Medal of Honor winner and a Commander Air Group. I’ve already watched for most of the last 15 years as a neighbor of mine died from that terrible disease. He led a company of soldiers in the Negev in the Palmach in the Israeli War of Independence. His wife is one of the most decent women you could ever know.

I’m “Polydisabled” with 2 major disabilities, and a couple of minor disabilities, all of which impact the quality of my life and limit my ability to participate in life.

The Blastocyst, as hard as it is to imagine it, is a human being, made in God’s image and likeness. As much as I’m tempted to heal my Bishop, or myself, by killing the Blastocyst, I can’t. It’s God’s Law.

Here’s an article from a Protestant on the issue which includes some notes on how we should respond to those who are suffering:

Presbyterians Pro-Life - Common Ground
Fetal Tissue Harvesting - Shall we do evil that good may come from it
ppl.org/cg8.html

I hope this makes this issue a little more clear.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Well, it looks like embryonic stem cell reserch is due to go ahead regardless of the opposition to it. Now i have a question.

If it turns out to be the tressure trove of cures that people are currently hoping. In the future will you all boycotte anything that can trace its origins back to this period, and to stem cell reserch.

I cannot see any mother in good conciouse allowing their child to die when a simple cure is on the market but that cure had its roots in reserch done on embryos.

And I cannot see any mother in good conscience profitting from the murder of another person for the sake of her own child.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Hasn’t adult stem cell researd received any knowledge transfer from embryonic stem cell research already? Which came first?

I am not sure which came first. I do know, however, that adult stem cell therapy works better than embryonic stem cell therapy.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Yet the Catholic Church approves of adult stem cell research, does it not? Did some of the knowledge used in this research come from embryonic stem cell research? If it did, does it mean that all the research is corrupt and should be stopped?

Consider a parallel: should we not treat syphillis because of those who suffered the Tuskegee Experiment?

The adult stem cell research and therapy does not come about by anyone’s murder. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I have thought about this alot. It still comes down to this. IMO of course. Am I going to kill your child so mine can live. Is that not really what it is. To kill one baby to save another. How can your child be more important than mine, or vice-versa.

I cannot see any way that we can say killing is okay. God says no. If we have the faith in God we all say we do, we have to rely on him totally to find us the right answer. And the killing of a inocent baby is not the answer. THis I am sure of.

And what does it profit you to gain the whole world (or an illigitimate cure) if you lose your immortal soul in the process? Right?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

You are making an assumption (making an A** out of you and me) that knowledge from ESR is used in adult stem cell research.

What if the scientists using adult stem cells were responsible and moral and did not use any knowledge gained from ESR.

To the original question, no gains from any experiments that involve the abuse, torture and murder of innocent babies should ever be used, no matter what the potential.

Why do we always compromise the Truth for the false “greater good” argument? Once we allow experimentation on innocent humans, we have opened the door for extreme evil.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

Agreed. Mark, I would really appreciate it if under your quotation in Latin you would translate to English so that I could reap the benefit of the quotation. Thank you.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I think that was me and it was not an assumption, but rather a question, which no one answered. Which came first? I was aware of embryonic stem cell research first, but that is just what I remember.

*If *the embryonic stem cell research came first, it is not logical to assume that adult stem cell research was conducted in an academic vacuum devoid of knowledge gained in previous work. In fact, would work with adult stem cells have even started if not for embryonic stem cell research?

How in the world can that question be answered? Why would one assume that the idea of using adult stem cells wouldn’t or didn’t occur at the same time…and possibly by the same group of scientists…that thought of using embryonic stem cells? I think it is more about stem cells than where they would come from that the thought originated.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

First of all… research discovered stem cells … then they began to understand that adult stem cells had their origins in embryonic stem cells …

Adult stem cells have already provideded many cures to a huge variety of illnesses and disease … Adult stem cells have many advantages over mbryonic stem cells …

People come to understand their personal errors and repent all the time … it is possible for a scientist to have worked with embryonic stem cells, come to recognize that for the immoral action it is and choose to then concetrate upon adult stem cells … this is a person you could support …

There was not prohibition on embryonic stem cells - ever … the prohibition was on public taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research … the fact is that this area of rsearch has not been very promising … those who provide private funding would like to see positive and lucrative results in their life times … Embryonic stem cell research does not appear to offer that result …

Far better to get government money - you do not have to actually produce any results and the supply is endless

As for the 100 embryos and the other children … False question … you would try to save all. My inablility to save all and only to save some does not mean that I then can decide to murder those I cannot save before the fire kills them.

:clapping:

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I don’t want to raise false hope, but Adult Stem Cells are ahead of embryonic:

dailymail.co.uk/health/article-447810/Stem-cells-spell-end-diabetes-jabs.html

As a practical matter, as more adult stem cell treatments develop, and are used, the reasons for using embryonic cells will decrease, funding will decrease, and hopefully, the deaths of human beings by this method will decrease.

Peace,
Ed

What you say makes sense. But I do not seeing any decrease in this administration. Do you?

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

That involves a deliberately taking of life before the fact. The better analogy would be you being killed in a robbery and your liver being used to save someone else, despite the fact that your murder was a sin. Did the person who received your liver materially or remotely cooperate in your murder?

that would depend. Did the person who murdered you do so in order to recieve your liver?

 

[Michael96]

I think the moral issues are so difficult if the research has already been done. Almost every drug coming onto the market now will have had some tests done using HEK-293 cells (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_cell) which are Human Embryonic Kidney cells derived from an aborted foetus. This cell line has been going nearly 40 years and is used in almost every molecular biology lab on the planet (and almost every molecular biologist, Catholic or not, uses HEK cells at some point - they are possibly the most widely used of any cell type). Nevertheless - it originated from a human foetus (it’s not a stem cell line, so cannot be used for that reserach). Do we therefore reject new drugs coming onto the market. Most of us don’t.

So if the work has been done and the cell line has been established (assuming a single cell line can then be used for everyone) then I would use it on my child.

But if a new embryo has to be used then that would be different - but I think only a parent can make the final decision (moral issues are very easy when we’re sitting in an armchair with no skin in the game ourselves).

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I think the moral issues are so difficult if the research has already been done. Almost every drug coming onto the market now will have had some tests done using HEK-293 cells (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEK_cell) which are Human Embryonic Kidney cells derived from an aborted foetus. This cell line has been going nearly 40 years and is used in almost every molecular biology lab on the planet (and almost every molecular biologist, Catholic or not, uses HEK cells at some point - they are possibly the most widely used of any cell type). Nevertheless - it originated from a human foetus (it’s not a stem cell line, so cannot be used for that reserach). Do we therefore reject new drugs coming onto the market. Most of us don’t.

So if the work has been done and the cell line has been established (assuming a single cell line can then be used for everyone) then I would use it on my child.

But if a new embryo has to be used then that would be different - but I think only a parent can make the final decision (moral issues are very easy when we’re sitting in an armchair with no skin in the game ourselves).

That is precisely why God has given us laws, and there are moral absolutes. We are fallible. Emotions cause human beings to do some really crazy…and sometimes evil things. We cannot make laws using our emotions. Yes, my child could at any moment become deathly ill…and the only cure being something from an unethical scientific method. And truthfully, I would have to suffer greatly emotionally…agonizing about whether to put all of my beliefs on the line for just a longer time to keep my child alive.
That is human nature.
Therefore, laws have to reflect justice for all…and do so morally. That way people will not have to agonize so horrendously with their emotions. There should be no chance to do something immoral in a lawful way.